CONTROL OF NOx EMISSIONS FROM 

GLASS MELTING FURNACES 

25 Pa. Code Chapters 121 and 129 

Advance Notice of Final Rulemaking 

39 Pa. B. 5318 (September 12, 2009) 

Environmental Quality Board Regulation #7-420 

(Independent Regulatory Review Commission #2683)

Comment/Response Document 
ANFR Comment/Response Document 

Control of NOx Emissions from Glass Melting Furnaces 

In response to comments received during the official public comment period on the proposed 

rulemaking for glass melting furnaces (38 Pa. B. 1831, April 19, 2008), and following the 

Department's review of other related information, the Department prepared a draft final-form 

rulemaking for public comment. The draft final-form rulemaking contained significant changes 

from proposed in several areas, and the Department believed further discussion and an additional 

comment period would serve the public interest. An Advance Notice of Final Rulemaking 

(ANFR) was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on September 12, 2009 (39 Pa.B. 5318). 

The comment period opened on September 12 and closed on October 14, 2009. 

The official public comment period held by the Environmental Quality Board (Board) on the 

proposed rulemaking closed on June 23, 2008. Three public hearings were held by the Board on 

the proposed rulemaking as follows: 

May 19, 2008 Department of Environmental Protection 

2:00 p.m. Rachel Carson State Office Building 

 Room 105 

 400 Market Street 

 Harrisburg, PA 17105 

May 21, 2008 Department of Environmental Protection 

2:00 p.m. Northeast Regional Office 

 Susquehanna Room A, Second Floor 

 2 Public Square 

 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711 

May 23, 2008 Department of Environmental Protection 

2:00 p.m. Southwest Regional Office 

 Waterfront A & B Conference Room 

 400 Waterfront Drive 

 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 

This document summarizes the written comments received from the public during the ANFR 

public comment period held by the Department that followed the Board’s official public 

comment period. Each comment is listed with an identifying number for each commentator that 

made the comment. A list of the commentators, including name, affiliation (if any), and 

location, can be found at the beginning of this document. If adopted by the Board, the final-form 

regulation will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a revision to 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

2
ANFR Comment/Response Document 

Table of Commentators to the Department of Environmental Protection

Control of NOx Emissions from Glass Melting Furnaces 

Advance Notice of Final Rulemaking

Rulemaking # 7-420

(IRRC # 2683)

ID Name/Address 

1. Edward Hines 

Plant Manager 

PQ Corporation 

Chester, PA 

2. Steven B. Smith 

Vice President, Environmental Affairs 

Saint-Gobain Containers 

Muncie, IN 

3. Steven F. Faeth 

Senior Counsel EHS 

PPG Industries, Inc. 

Pittsburgh, PA 

4. Louis A. Naugle 

Reed Smith LLP, for: 

Pittsburgh Corning Corporation 

Port Allegheny, PA 

5. Thomas J. McDonald 

Manager, Environmental, Health and Safety 

SCHOTT North America, Inc. 

Duryea, PA 

6. Matthew H. Gontarz 

Plant Manager 

Osram Sylvania 

Wellsboro, PA 

7. Joseph D. Stas 

Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC 

Pittsburgh, PA 

8. Joel Daoust 

Plant Manager 

Guardian Industries Corp. 

Jefferson Hills, PA 

9. Angus E. Crane 

Vice President, General Counsel 

NAIMA (North American Insulation Manufacturers 

Association) 

Alexandria, VA 

3
ANFR Comment/Response Document 

10. Senator Mary Jo White 

Chairperson 

Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee 

Harrisburg, PA 

11. Senator Raphael J. Musto 

Democratic Chairman 

Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee 

Harrisburg, PA 

12. Representative Scott E. Hutchinson 

Republican Chairman 

House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee 

Harrisburg, PA 

13. Senator Jane Clare Orie 

Majority Whip 

Senate of Pennsylvania 

Harrisburg, PA 

14. Senator Robert D. Robbins 

State Senator 

Senate of Pennsylvania 

Harrisburg, PA 

15. Representative Scott Perry 

State Representative 

House of Representatives 

Harrisburg, PA 

16. Barbara A. McNees 

President 

Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce 

Pittsburgh, PA 

17. James E. Thompson 

Air Director 

Allegheny County Health Department 

Pittsburgh, PA 

4
ANFR Comment/Response Document 

General Support

1. Comment: The commentator supports the adoption of the NOx emission limits for fiberglass 

plants consistent with the 4.0 pounds of NOx per ton of glass pulled (lbs NOx/ton glass pulled) 

adopted by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). This commentator states that a 

performance standard based on 4.0 lbs/ton of glass pulled emission limit is a technologically 

feasible and pragmatic approach that requires implementation of low-NOx combustion 

technology. They further state that this emission limit is supported by regulatory precedent as it 

the same limit adopted by other jurisdictions and by the recommendation of the OTC, therefore 

creating uniformity in emission standards. (9) 

Response: The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) appreciates the 

commentator’s support of the draft final-form rulemaking for fiberglass plants. The Department 

agrees with the commentator that the OTC-recommended emission limit of 4.0 lbs NOx/ton glass 

pulled for fiberglass plants in the final-form rulemaking achieves consistency and uniformity 

among the 13 members (12 states and the District of Columbia) of the OTC, and that the 

emission limit for fiberglass furnaces can be achieved with technologies currently available. 

Proposed NOx Emission Limits

2. Comment: The commentator stated that it is an arbitrary and capricious action to base the 

regulation’s proposed NOx emission limits on a California rule without an explanation as to why 

they are appropriate to Pennsylvania. (4) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator that the rule’s allowable NOx 

emission limit requirements are arbitrary and capricious. The Department proposed the 

allowable NOx emission requirements as a result of the research conducted by and the 

recommendations of the Northeast OTC. The Northeast OTC is a multi-state organization 

created under Section 184 of the CAA. 42 U.S.C.A. § 7511c. The OTC is responsible for 

advising the EPA on ground-level ozone pollution transport issues and for developing and 

implementing regional solutions to the ground-level ozone problem in the Northeast and MidAtlantic regions. The members of the OTC (this Commonwealth, CT, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, 

NJ, NY, RI, VA and VT, and the District of Columbia) are required to demonstrate attainment 

with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard of 80 ppb. See 62 FR 38855 (July 18, 1997). 

Additionally, on March 12, 2008, the EPA issued a more protective 8-hour ozone standard of 75 

ppb that would require additional reductions of ozone precursor emissions. See 73 FR 16436 

(March 27, 2008). The 2008 revised standard would require additional reductions of emissions 

of ozone precursors, including NOx, that impact each member’s nonattainment status. As 

required by the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the Commonwealth submitted recommendations 

to the EPA in 2009 to designate 29 counties as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The EPA was expected to take final action on the designation recommendations by 

March 2010. However, the EPA has reconsidered the 2008 ozone NAAQS and on January 19, 

2010, published a proposed rulemaking to set a more protective 8-hour primary standard at a 

lower level within the range of 0.060-0.070 ppm; the final revised ozone standard is expected in 

August 2010. See 75 FR 2938. If, as is widely expected, the EPA tightens the ozone standard, 

5
ANFR Comment/Response Document 

the additional NOx emissions from the final-form rulemaking for glass melting furnaces will be 

even more important than if the current 2008 ozone standard remains in place. In addition, 

Northeast states are conducting attainment planning work to support development of PM2.5 and 

regional haze SIPs to satisfy obligations under the CAA and regulations issued under the CAA. 

See 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009) and 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). NOx emissions are 

precursors to the development of PM2.5 and regional haze. 

The OTC undertook a study to identify a suite of additional control measures that could be used 

by the members in attaining their goals. Workgroups of staff from within the OTC members 

were established to evaluate control measures for specific sectors or issues. Department staff 

actively participated in these workgroups. Based on a review of 1,000 candidate control 

measures, the workgroups developed a short list of measures to be considered for more detailed 

analysis. The technical information for this short list of measures is found in the OTC report: 

Identification and Evaluation of Candidate Control Measures, Final Technical Support 

Document, prepared by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc., Herndon, VA, February 28, 2007. 

Control of NOx emissions from glass melting furnaces in the six states within the OTR that have 

glass melting furnaces (this Commonwealth, MA, MD, NJ, NY and RI) was on the short list as a 

measure for further analysis by the workgroups. The workgroups reviewed information on 

current NOx emissions from the furnaces, controls already in place on the furnaces, anticipated 

additional NOx emissions reductions from the control measures, preliminary cost and costeffectiveness data, and other implementation issues. The workgroups discussed all the candidate 

control measures, including controlling NOx emissions from glass melting furnaces, during a 

series of conference calls and workshops to further refine the emission reduction estimates, the 

cost data and implementation issues. 

The workgroups also discussed comments from stakeholders, including glass melting furnace 

stakeholders (North American Insulation Manufacturers Association and Glass Association of 

North America). The OTC Commissioners summarized the glass melting furnace control 

measures and made a recommendation at the Commissioners’ meetings in 2006 that the affected 

member states consider NOx emission reductions from glass melting furnaces. The glass 

melting furnace stakeholders were provided multiple opportunities to review and comment on 

the glass melting furnace control measures summary. Public meetings were held as an 

opportunity for stakeholders to review and respond to the Commissioners’ recommendations, 

stakeholders provided written comments, and the workgroups conducted conference calls with 

specific stakeholders to allow the stakeholders to vocalize their concerns directly to state 

regulatory staff and to discuss the control options. The OTC staff and state workgroups carefully 

considered the verbal and written comments received during this process. 

The OTC’s control measures summary recommends that states may allow the owners or 

operators of glass melting furnaces to propose compliance methods based on California’s San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rule 4354 (relating to glass melting 

furnaces) which allows a “mix of control options to meet specified emission limits.” The NOx 

emission rates recommended in the OTC control measures summary document are the rates 

specified in the SJVAPCD Rule 4354. The Department reviewed, analyzed and concurred with 

the OTC’s control measures summary document for glass melting furnaces with respect to the 

individual glass melting furnaces located in this Commonwealth, and determined that proposing 

6
ANFR Comment/Response Document 

a glass melting furnaces regulation based on the SJVAPCD Rule’s 4354 mix of control options 

to meet specified emission limits was the appropriate implementation strategy for a rulemaking 

to control NOx emissions from this Commonwealth’s glass melting furnaces. 

This Commonwealth, along with the other affected OTC member states, agreed to establish NOx 

emission limits and controls for glass melting furnaces that are based on the SJVAPCD Rule 

4354 so that there would be a level playing field among the OTC states. The owners and 

operators of glass melting furnaces in this Commonwealth remain competitive with those states 

not in the OTC with the option of an alternative compliance schedule contained in the petition 

process that is provided in subsections 129.304(b) and (c) (relating to emission requirements) of 

the final-form rulemaking. 

3. Comment: A commentator requests that the Department add to the final-form rulemaking a 

definitive and feasible alternate standard or exemption applicable to unique specialty glass 

operations such as theirs. (5) 

Response: The Department recognized that furnaces within this Commonwealth that produce a 

glass product other than the four types listed in the proposed rulemaking (flat, container, 

fiberglass and pressed and blown) were not adequately considered in the proposed rulemaking. 

The furnaces that produce a glass product other than flat, container, fiberglass or pressed and 

blown glass were not considered during the glass melting furnaces control measures strategy and 

planning by the OTC, so providing them an alternative emission limitation is also reasonable. 

As a result, the Department has added under § 129.304 in the final-form rulemaking an emission 

limit of 6.0 lbs NOx/ton glass pulled for any other glass melting furnace that does not produce 

flat, container, fiberglass and pressed and blown glass products. The Department, in researching 

and analyzing these types of furnaces in this Commonwealth, considered the limit of 6.0 lbs 

NOx/ton glass pulled to be a reasonable limit based on the low NOx burner technology that is 

available to reduce uncontrolled NOx emissions by 30-35%. Additionally, subsection 

129.304(c)(1) in the final-form rulemaking provides glass melting furnace owners and operators 

a petition process for an alternative emission limitation for furnaces that produce a glass product 

other than flat, container, fiberglass or pressed or blown glass. 

4. Comment: Several commentators questioned why the draft final-form regulation only 

provided an alternative emission limitation petition process in subsection 129.304(c) to the 

owners and operators of glass melting furnaces that produce an “other” glass product. (4,7,8) 

Response: The glass melting furnaces in this Commonwealth that produce an “other” glass 

product were not considered during the glass melting furnace control measures strategy and 

planning within the OTC, so providing them an opportunity to petition the Department for an 

alternative emission limitation is appropriate and reasonable. 

5. Comment: The Senate and House Committees on Environmental Resources and Energy 

(Committees), several legislators, and other commentators commented that the Department 

should consider providing a variance procedure or exception from the regulation for a glass 

melting furnace that definitively demonstrates that its emissions are not materially contributing 

to the development of ground-level ozone. (3,7,10,11,12,14,15,16) 

7
ANFR Comment/Response Document 

Response: The Department maintains that a demonstration using air dispersion modeling (pointsource or regional scale) to show that a single facility “does not contribute to the failure of any 

nonattainment area to comply with the air quality standards for ozone” is not the determination 

of whether a facility is subject to a proposed rulemaking. Air dispersion models are not designed 

to simulate source-specific contributions to ozone nonattainment areas. A finding that emission 

reductions at one source of NOx does not contribute to the failure of any nonattainment area to 

comply with the air quality standards for ozone is not surprising. Sensitivity analyses have often 

shown that the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model used by states for attainment 

demonstrations is relatively "stiff" considering even large emission changes; that is, the model 

may not predict large changes in ozone concentrations even when large emission reductions are 

made. Therefore, a variance relying on modeling would be inappropriate. The OTC undertook a 

study to identify a suite of control measures that could be used by the members as part of a 

regional effort to attain and maintain the 1997 NAAQS for ozone. The NOx emissions 

reductions from glass melting furnaces are a necessary component in this regional strategy. 

Certain areas of this Commonwealth continue to exceed the health-based 1997 8-hour NAAQS 

for ozone. This final-form rulemaking to control NOx emissions from glass melting furnaces 

will result in additional NOx emission reductions that are necessary to support attaining and 

maintaining the health-based 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 80 ppb in this Commonwealth and 

downwind areas. See 62 FR 38855 (July 18, 1997). Furthermore, on March 12, 2008, the EPA 

issued a more protective 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb that would require additional 

reductions of ozone precursor emissions, including NOx, that impact each OTR member’s 

nonattainment status. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). However, the EPA has reconsidered 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS and on January 19, 2010, published a proposed rulemaking to set a 

more protective 8-hour primary standard at a lower level within the range of 0.060-0.070 ppm; 

the final revised ozone standard is expected in August 2010. See 75 FR 2938. If, as is widely 

expected, the EPA tightens the ozone standard, the additional NOx emissions from the final-form 

rulemaking for glass melting furnaces will be even more important than if the current 2008 

ozone standard remains in place. 

This final-form rulemaking will also reduce concentrations of PM2.5 and the formation of 

regional haze. The EPA, in its “Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule,” determined that 

NOx emissions are also precursors to the formation of PM2.5. See 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 

2007). Additionally, in November 2009, the EPA designated six areas (all or part of 22 counties) 

in this Commonwealth as not attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688 

(November 13, 2009). The EPA is also evaluating the adequacy of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as 

part of its periodic review required under Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA. 42 U.S.C.A. 

§ 7409(d)(1). Furthermore, when initially adopting the visibility protection provisions of the 

1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress specifically recognized that the “visibility problem 

is caused primarily by emission into the atmosphere of SO2, oxides of nitrogen, and particulate 

matter, especially fine particulate matter, from inadequate[ly] controlled sources.” See 64 FR 

35713 at p.35715 (July 1, 1999). Section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA sets forth a National goal for 

visibility which is the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” 42 U.S.C.A. 

§ 7491(a)(1). If adopted, the NOx emission reduction provisions of the final-form rulemaking 

for glass melting furnaces will help to reduce formation of ozone, PM2.5 and regional haze 

8
ANFR Comment/Response Document 

pollution in this Commonwealth and throughout the OTR. As a result, this rulemaking is 

reasonably necessary to achieve and maintain the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Compliance Date of the Regulation

6. Comment: A comment made by numerous commentators, including the Committees, is that 

in order to avoid possible economic disruption to the operations at the affected furnaces, the 

Department should allow an existing furnace to operate through its full life cycle before 

requiring it to be replaced or rebuilt with control technology in order to meet the regulation’s 

NOx emission limits. The commentators suggest that it may assist the Department as well as the 

regulated industry to not base the compliance timeframe on a specific date. The commentators 

also state that other states permit furnaces to be upgraded after their normal and anticipated life 

expectancy has been exhausted. (3,4,10,11,12,13,14,15,16) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentators. The Department agrees that it 

could possibly be infeasible for all affected owners or operators of glass melting furnaces to 

comply with the allowable emission limits by January 1, 2012. In recognition of this, subsection 

129.304(b) in the final-form rulemaking provides a process to all glass melting furnace owners 

and operators to petition the Department for an alternative compliance schedule if they will be 

unable to meet the emission limits beginning January 1, 2012. The Department believes that a 

final compliance date specified in the regulation is necessary to ensure that the owners and 

operators of the glass melting furnaces in this Commonwealth limit the NOx emissions from 

their furnaces by a date certain, either by January 1, 2012, or by the date specified on a case-bycase basis as determined through the petition process for an alternative compliance schedule in 

subsection 129.304(c). Additionally, the SJVAPCD Rule 4354, whose NOx emission limits and 

compliance methods were recommended by the OTC control measures group, specifies a final 

compliance date. 

7. Comment: Several commentators commented that the petition process described in 

subsections 129.304(b) and (c) of the draft final-form rulemaking should specify what factors the 

Department will consider in order for a glass melting furnace to qualify for an alternative 

compliance deadline. Comments were made that specifying such factors will avoid confusion 

and misunderstanding regarding what the owner or operator of a glass melting furnace must 

demonstrate and submit for the Department’s approval by January 1, 2011, and those factors 

should consist of whether the furnace in question meets its existing emission limitations, the 

anticipated date of the next furnace rebricking, and whether the furnace will continue to meet its 

existing emission limitations. (2,3,4,7,8,10,11,12) 

Response: The Department believes the petition process contained in subsections 129.304(b) 

and (c) is comprehensive but not overly prescriptive and includes all the factors suggested by the 

commentators. In addition, the Department has revised this section in the final-form rulemaking 

to require submittal of a petition request to, and not approval by, the Department by January 1, 

2012, rather than approval by January 1, 2011. The Department maintains that the concerns 

expressed by the commentators regarding the petition process will be alleviated by the change to 

the final-form regulation that requires submittal of the petition by January 1, 2012, and does not 

require approval of the petition by January 1, 2011. This timeframe will provide the owners and 

9
ANFR Comment/Response Document 

operators of glass melting furnaces the flexibility to coordinate with the Department on a caseby-case basis the exact information the Department requires in order to determine the approval of 

a petition submittal. 

Applicability of the Regulation

8. Comment: A comment was made requesting that the short-term applicability criteria for a 

furnace that emits NOx at greater than 20 pounds per hour, but otherwise emits below 50 tons 

per year of NOx, be deleted from the rulemaking. The commentator states that the rulemaking’s 

short-term applicability criteria places an unreasonable burden on glass melting operations that 

have unique processes and may emit at times greater than 20 pounds of NOx per hour but on a 

long term basis emit below the primary criterion of 50 tons per year of NOx, and making these 

unique glass melting operations subject to the regulation will not result in significant overall 

emission reductions. (5) 

Response: The Department agrees with the commentator that applying the regulation to these 

unique glass melting operations will not result in significant overall emission reductions. Section 

129.302 (relating to applicability) in the final-form rulemaking has been revised to include only 

owners and operators of furnaces that emit NOx at greater than 50 tons per year as subject to the 

regulation. 

9. Comment: The Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) commented that the finalform rulemaking should be modified to state that the regulation applies to furnaces under the 

jurisdiction of a local air pollution control agency, and in order for ACHD to implement the 

provisions of the regulation, all reports and notifications required under the regulation should be 

submitted directly to the local agency. (17) 

Response: The Department agrees with the commentator. Applicability § 129.302 in the finalform rulemaking was modified to include those glass melting furnaces under the jurisdiction of 

an approved local air pollution control agency, and all references in the final-form rulemaking 

that reports and notifications are to be submitted to the Department now also include the 

approved local air pollution control agency, which will ensure that ACHD can fully implement 

and enforce this regulation. 

Exemptions

10. Comment: One commentator stated that the exemptions section should be revised to 

require that the owner or operator of a glass melting furnace notify the Department within 24 

hours after the initiation of an exemption operation, instead of within 24 hours prior to initiating 

the operation, because there are some instances where an unforseen problem requires a facility to 

immediately go into an unanticipated idling position. (1) 

Response: The Department agrees with the commentator. Subsection 129.303(b) (relating to 

exemptions) was modified as requested in the final-form rulemaking. 

10
ANFR Comment/Response Document 

11. Comment: One commentator stated that the timing of any written notification to the 

Department contained in the exemptions § 129.303 not be tied to the occurrence of the 

exemption event itself. (2) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator. The Department maintains that the 

requirement in subsection 129.303(b) to notify the Department within 24 hours of initiating the 

exempt operation, and the requirement in subsection 129.303(d) to notify the Department in 

writing within 24 hours after completion of the exempt operation, is reasonable and not 

burdensome to the facility claiming the exemption. 

12. Comment: Several commentators commented that an exemption from the emission limits 

should be included for glass melting furnaces during “periods of upset or malfunction” that affect 

an emission control device. Comments were also made that the routine maintenance exemption 

of 144 hours in total for add-on emission controls is not long enough to account for the 

complexities of the control techniques likely to be employed, and that each major component of 

the control system should be exempted from the emission limits for 144 hours each calendar year 

for routine maintenance. (2,3,7,10,11,12) 

Response: The Department believes that an exemption for a furnace malfunction or upset period 

is not required. The Department does not routinely provide exemptions from emission limits for 

periods of upset or malfunction in regulations to control emissions from sources. The 

Department proposed a glass melting furnace regulation based on the SJVAPCD Rule 4354 that 

was recommended by the OTC as an appropriate implementation strategy for a rulemaking to 

control NOx emissions from glass melting furnaces. The Department believes that the 

SJVAPCD Rule 4354 addresses the issue of exemption from emission limits during maintenance 

appropriately, by allowing a total of 144 hours each calendar year for routine maintenance on all 

add-on controls. The SJVAPCD Rule 4354 does not provide an exemption from the emission 

limits for periods of upset or malfunction. The Department considered that the furnace itself 

should be included within the framework of routine maintenance, and has added subsection 

129.304(d) to the final-form rulemaking to address exemptions from emission limits for the 

maintenance or repair measures on the furnace components. 

Furnace Start-Up Requirements

13. Comment: Several commentators commented that the furnace start-up section should be 

modified to require a plan approval application for a start-up exemption only ‘if required,’ and 

not for activities associated with routine repair or maintenance of the furnace. They comment 

further that the start-up exemption in the draft final-form rulemaking unnecessarily restricts the 

exemption to a new furnace or furnace rebuild and does not account for an idled existing furnace, 

and implies that a plan approval would be required in connection with a furnace start-up, which 

is not necessarily the case. (1,2,3,10,11,12) 

Response: The Department has revised this section of the final-form rulemaking. Subsection 

129.305(b) specifies that a plan approval application for a furnace start-up exemption request 

shall be submitted ‘if required,’ in recognition that some furnace start-ups may not require a plan 

approval. 

11
ANFR Comment/Response Document 

14. Comment: The ‘not to exceed 5% excess oxygen’ restriction during a furnace combustion 

start-up should be eliminated, as it does not appear to have a relationship or a benefit to NOx 

emissions. (3,7,10,11,12) 

Response: The Department retains in the final-form rulemaking the furnace start-up restriction 

in subsection 129.305(f) (relating to start-up requirements) of ‘not to exceed 5% excess oxygen’, 

which is consistent with the furnace start-up requirements in the SJVAPCD Rule 4354. 

Definitions

15. Comment: Several commentators commented that the definition of “start-up” should be 

revised consistent with the San Joaquin rule to include necessary language on furnace 

stabilization, that is, the phrase “and systems and instrumentation are brought to stabilization”. 

(2,3,7,10,11,12) 

Response: The Department agrees with the commentators. The definition of “start-up” has 

been revised in the final-form rulemaking to include the furnace stabilization phrase suggested 

by the commentator, and to be consistent with the SJVAPCD Rule 4354. 

16. Comment: Two commentators commented that the definition of “rebricking” and the 

revised definition of “furnace rebuild” in the draft final-form rulemaking are confusing, and 

further comment that they have concern over whether routine repairs to a furnace would be 

considered a rebuild or rebrick of the furnace. (1,6) 

Response: The Department agrees with the commentators, and has deleted both definitions in 

the final-form rulemaking and has added a definition for “cold shutdown,” and included the term 

“scheduled” whenever the term “cold shutdown” is used within the final-form rulemaking to 

distinguish between furnace repair activities and a scheduled cold shutdown when the furnace is 

cold and does not contain molten glass. The Department believes this will alleviate the concerns 

about routine repairs to a furnace. 

Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS)

17. Comment: Several commentators commented that the data substitution method for 

emissions monitoring in the compliance determination section that requires the highest valid 1-

hour emission value during the reporting quarter be substituted for invalidated data is 

unreasonable and punitive. They comment further that for periods of invalid data, the 

Department should allow substituting data that is more representative of the actual emissions. 

(1,2,4,6) 

Response: The Department agrees with the commentators, and revised the data substitution 

method in the final-form rulemaking to require the highest valid 1-hour value that occurred under 

similar source operating conditions during the reporting quarter be substituted for the invalidated 

data. In addition, the Department added to subsection 129.308(c) (relating to compliance 

determination) an option for the owners and operators of glass melting furnaces to submit for the 

12
ANFR Comment/Response Document 

Department’s approval an alternative procedure to quantify the furnace NOx emissions and glass 

production data instead of using the data substitution method for invalidated data. 

18. Comment: Several commentators commented that the requirements in §§ 129.308 and 

129.309 (relating to compliance demonstration) to report CEMS data and daily glass production 

data on a quarterly basis is inconsistent with existing Title V reporting requirements, and creates 

a duplicative and burdensome additional reporting obligation on the regulated community. 

(1,6,8) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentators. The Department does not believe 

that maintaining records of daily glass production will present a significant inconvenience to any 

owner or operator. Daily records may be needed to enable the Department to verify the 

relationship between NOx emissions recorded by CEMS, and glass produced during the 

compliance period. Records sufficiently precise to quantify glass produced by each glass 

melting furnace during a reporting quarter are necessary to enable owners and operators to 

demonstrate compliance. Continuous emission monitoring is the most precise means of 

determining emissions over extended time periods. Because the CEMS data is recorded and 

reported quarterly, in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Department’s Continuous 

Source Monitoring Manual (DEP 274-0300-001), the Department does not believe that 

submitting CEMS data on a quarterly basis in order to demonstrate compliance with the 

allowable emission limits is duplicative or burdensome. 

Miscellaneous

19. Comment: Several commentators requested the Department work with the regulated 

industry in a transparent manner so that the true benefits and costs of the regulation will be 

known. The commentators further state that although the Department asserts several times in the 

preamble to the proposed NOx regulation that reducing NOx emissions will also result in 

reduced emissions of fine particulate matter, they have not provided the regulated community 

with data or information that supports this assertion. (14,15,16) 

Response: The Department’s commitment to transparency is supported by our decision to 

publish an ANFR on the draft final-form regulation to provide stakeholders with further 

opportunity to comment. The EPA, in its “Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule,” 

determined that NOx emissions are precursors to the formation of PM2.5. See 72 FR 20586 

(April 25, 2007). In November 2009, the EPA designated six areas (all or part of 22 counties) in 

this Commonwealth as not attaining the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688 

(November 13, 2009). The adoption of the final-form rulemaking for glass melting furnaces will 

help to reduce the formation of PM2.5. 

20. Comment: A commentator stated that the Department did not adequately address, while 

drafting and promulgating the draft rulemaking and in accordance with Executive Order 1996-1, 

whether the costs of the regulation exceed its benefits or not, and also that the proposed 

rulemaking does not support a conclusion that its costs will not exceed the benefits, and therefore 

the cost/benefit analysis must be provided. (4) 

13
ANFR Comment/Response Document 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator. The Department addressed the 

benefits and the costs associated with the proposed rulemaking in the preamble to the proposed 

rulemaking’s public notice published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin (38 Pa. B. 1831, April 19, 

2008). Additionally, as part of the Commonwealth’s comprehensive rulemaking process, the 

Department is required to evaluate all costs associated with the rulemaking on the affected 

industry as part of a detailed regulatory analysis form. This form is required to be submitted for 

review to the Governor’s Office of General Counsel, the Senate and House Environmental 

Committees and the Attorney General as part of the rulemaking package. 

Commonwealth Executive Order 1996-1 applies to the final-form rulemaking since there is not a 

companion Federal rule that reduces NOx emissions from glass melting furnaces. However, this 

proposed rulemaking is reasonably necessary to attain and maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The criteria for adopting state regulations more stringent than Federal regulations 

(when Federal regulations exist) are in the Air Pollution Control Act (APCA), Section 4.2 (35 

P.S. § 4004.2). Section 4.2 of the APCA authorizes the Board to adopt regulations more 

stringent than Federal requirements when the control measures are reasonably necessary to attain 

and maintain the ambient air quality standards. 

21. Comment: The commentator states that the EQB acknowledges in the ANFR Pennsylvania 

Bulletin notice that the EPA advised Pennsylvania that CAIR does not apply to glass melting 

furnaces, and therefore the draft final-form rulemaking imposes requirements on glass melting 

furnaces that are more stringent than Federal standards. (4) 

Response: The purpose of the rulemaking is to address reductions of NOx from glass melting 

furnaces, while the EPA’s CAIR addresses NOx reductions from electric generating units, 

certain boilers, stationary combustion turbines and stationary internal combustion engines. 

Therefore, these are two different regulatory strategies with the goal of reducing NOx emissions 

from various source types within this Commonwealth. The EPA did not intend CAIR to 

comprise the entire solution to control NOx emissions from all types of sources, but only to 

address interstate transport of ozone and PM2.5 precursors from the electric generating unit 

sector. In fact, this Commonwealth and other OTC members have determined that additional 

NOx reductions may be necessary in some areas, in combination with reduction of interstate 

transport, to attain and maintain the NAAQS. This proposed rulemaking is reasonably necessary 

to attain and maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. The criteria for adopting state 

regulations more stringent than Federal regulations (when Federal regulations exist) are in the 

Air Pollution Control Act (APCA), Section 4.2 (35 P.S. § 4004.2). Section 4.2 of the APCA 

authorizes the Board to adopt regulations more stringent than Federal requirements when the 

control measures are reasonably necessary to attain and maintain the ambient air quality 

standards. 

 

22. Comment: A commentator commented that the final-form rulemaking violates Section 4.2 

of the Pennsylvania APCA, because Section 4.2 restricts the EQB from adopting by regulation: 

“...only those control measures or other requirements which are reasonably required, in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act deadlines, to achieve and maintain the ambient air quality 

standards or to satisfy related Clean Air Act requirements...” They further quote Section 4.2: 

“Control measures or other requirements adopted under subsection (a) of this section shall be no 

more stringent than those required by the Clean Air Act unless authorized or required by this Act 

14
ANFR Comment/Response Document 

or specifically required by the Clean Air Act.” The commentator maintains that NOx emissions 

from glass melting furnaces are not currently regulated by the EPA, so therefore this rulemaking 

is prohibited by Section 4.2 since it is more stringent than required by the Clean Air Act. (4) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator. The Department has the legal 

authority to require glass melting furnaces to limit their emissions of NOx. The law in this 

Commonwealth is well-settled regarding whether a regulation is valid and binding. A court must 

evaluate if the regulation is 1) within the agency's granted power, 2) issued pursuant to proper 

procedures and 3) reasonable. See for example, Rohrbaugh v. PUC, 556 Pa. 199, 727 A.2d 1080 

(1999); and Housing Authority v. Pa. Civil Service Com'n, 556 Pa, 621, 730 A.2d 935 (1999). 

Section 5 of the APCA provides that the Board shall adopt rules and regulations, for the 

prevention, control, reduction and abatement of air pollution, applicable throughout the 

Commonwealth. Clearly the intent of the glass melting furnace regulation is to reduce air 

pollution, and so therefore the Board has the requisite legal authority. The Board is proceeding 

with this rulemaking through the proper rulemaking procedures, as identified under the APCA, 

the Regulatory Review Act and the Commonwealth Documents Law. An environmental 

regulation is reasonable if it prevents the possibility of pollution (see Department of 

Environmental Resources v. Metzger, 347 A.2d 743 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975)), protects the public 

health and safety (see Chambers Development Company, Inc. v. Department of Environmental 

Resources, 545 A.2d 404 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988)), or reduces pollution (see Rochez Bros., Inc. v. 

Department of Environmental Resources, 334 A.2d 790 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975)). Since this 

rulemaking reduces pollution it is reasonable. 

23. Comment: The Department should consider development of a pool of surplus NOx 

“credits” from glass melting furnaces and allow trading and use of these credits by owners and 

operators of said furnaces to demonstrate compliance with the regulation, in light of the 

elimination of using CAIR NOx allowances as a compliance option in the draft final-form 

rulemaking. (6) 

Response: The Department disagrees with the commentator. Subsequent to the closing of the 

public comment period on June 23, 2008, for the proposed rulemaking (38 Pa.B. 1831, April 19, 

2008), but prior to the vacatur of the EPA’s CAIR, the Department held discussions with the 

EPA regarding the proposed rulemaking’s option to demonstrate compliance with the emission 

limits through the purchase of CAIR NOx allowances under the EPA’s CAIR regulation. During 

those discussions, the EPA indicated to the Department that a glass melting furnace regulation 

that would provide a compliance option to purchase CAIR NOx allowances would be 

problematic as far as approvability by the EPA for the Commonwealth’s SIP, because glass 

melting furnaces are not specifically included in the EPA’s CAIR program as a source category 

able to purchase CAIR NOx allowances to achieve compliance. The Department therefore 

removed from the draft final-form regulation the compliance option to purchase CAIR NOx 

allowances. A replacement for the EPA’s CAIR program could possibly include interstate 

trading, and the Department could possibly grant an owner or operator of a glass melting furnace 

approval to voluntarily participate in an interstate trading program in the future. However, by 

creating a “pool of surplus NOx credits” to allow owners and operators of glass melting furnaces 

in this Commonwealth to demonstrate compliance with the allowable emission limits in this 

final-form rulemaking and thereby avoid emission reductions, the Department would essentially 

15
ANFR Comment/Response Document 

16

be providing them the larger framework of an emissions trading program, which is beyond the 

scope and intent of the final-form rulemaking.